Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extrasolar planet extremes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

List of extrasolar planet extremes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is potentially a very misleading article. Not only are some of the entries dubious, a good case can be made for many of them that whatever is put in the entry is potentially misleading. On the principle that no information is better than incorrect or misleading "information", I nominate this article for deletion. My case against the entries:

Oldest: while the planet of PSR B1620-26 may have formed with the globular cluster, making it the oldest extrasolar planet, an alternative formation scenario postulates it formed from a disc produced during the red giant stage of PSR B1620-26B , which would make it much younger (~480 million years, from the first reference). Furthermore, age estimates for other stars are not very reliable at present.

Youngest: as noted in previous point, age estimates for stars tend to be unreliable.

Most massive: this is misleading, as we only have lower limits on the masses. Some of these extrasolar planets may well turn out to be brown dwarfs (or even stars, witness the case of HD 33636b ). Thus giving the example which happens to have the lowest lower limit is misleading, and misleading or incorrect "information" is worse than no information.

Least massive: probably on safer ground here, but to be pedantic the true mass of PSR B1257+12A is unknown and based on an assumption that it is coplanar with the outer two planets. While this assumption is reasonable, consider also that we seem to be arbitrarily ignoring the outermost companion of the pulsar, which may well qualify as a planet under certain definitions (note that strictly, the IAU definition only applies to objects orbiting the Sun).

Largest: the planet listed here is unconfirmed - it has not even been published in a refereed journal yet.

Smallest: Gliese 436 b is the smallest measured planet. However, we know of planets much less massive in the PSR B1257+12 system, which are almost certainly going to be smaller unless something really exotic is going on with their compositions. However putting the PSR B1257+12 planets is problematic because their radii are unknown.

Most distant: Probably on ok grounds here.

Least distant: Probably on ok grounds here too.

Densest: Previously listed here was Gliese 581 c, for which neither the radius nor the true mass are known. I removed this on the grounds that no information is better than misleading/incorrect "information". Furthermore with the ignorance of most planetary radii/true masses, this could be misleading.

Least dense: Possibly on ok grounds, but given that radii for most extrasolar planets are unknown, could be misleading.

Longest period: Currently listed is 2M1207b, for which the orbit is unknown. Someone seems to have got confused: while the measured separation is a minimum value, it could be at the outermost point of a highly eccentric orbit. Putting an unknown value here is misleading.

Shortest period: Probably ok with this one.

Most eccentric orbit: Probably ok.

Least eccentric orbit: Dubious assertion on this one. Many of the close-in planets have orbital elements given assuming zero eccentricity, others have eccentricities that are not statistically significant, etc. Potentially misleading.

Most inclined orbit: Probably ok.

Least inclined orbit: Since the inclinations of non-transiting planets are unknown, putting a value for this one is potentially misleading.

Largest orbit: Again the case of 2M1207b for which orbital properties are unknown.

Smallest orbit: Maybe ok.

Lowest Metallicity: Metallicity determinations are fairly uncertain, and in any case are based on ratio of iron to hydrogen. Nonconsideration of other elements is potentially misleading.

Discovery firsts: not really "extremes" are they?

Most Earthlike planets: again not really extremes. In addition, temperatures for all but a couple of hot Jupiters are unknown. Putting temperature values here is at best misleading and at worst incorrect. Chaos syndrome 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there's unfactual info in the article, then simply remove it. The concept of the article is what is debated in an AfD, not the quality of its current state. wikipediatrix 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with wikipediatrix. If you have issues with the facts, you can address your concerns on the talk page or put a tag on it. The premise of this article is useful IMHO.  MrMurph101 19:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not that I have issues with the facts as presented, I have issues with the fact that for the majority of these categories, whatever is put is going to be incorrect at the current state of knowledge, since we don't have enough information to put the right answers. My point is that there is no way to write a "list of extrasolar planet extremes": practically every entry has to have some kind of caveat, which makes the list kind of pointless. Chaos syndrome 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns. The "biggest" known exoplanet could be surpassed by a future discovery or current measurements are found to be improper.  How about changing the article to "List of (known or believed) extrasolar planet extremes"? MrMurph101 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much future discoveries or incorrect measurements that are the problem. The problem is the measurements we have, even if they are all correct, are not enough to fill in the majority of entries on this table. Basic quantities like masses are unknown for the majority of extrasolar planets. Ok, you might think, just take the subset of extrasolar planets with well-defined properties. Unfortunately this subset is radically different to the total set of extrasolar planet candidates: it is mainly composed of hot Jupiters, plus one hot Neptune, a couple of Jupiter-like planets in distant orbits that fortuitous conditions have allowed the determination of more parameters, and a pair of super-Earths around a pulsar (see List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets - an article which you will note has a rather misleading title, but I was overruled when I suggested changing it to something more accurate). Of course, we could have an article about the extremes of that subset, but it is unrepresentative of the known population as a whole, and defining it concisely enough to be put in an article title is going to be an interesting challenge. Personally, I'd rather not perpetuate the myth that the properties of the majority of planets are at all well known. Chaos syndrome 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The majority of entries on this table don't have to be here - if there's no sources for the data, then feel free to be WP:BOLD and remove 99 percent of the article's info if need be. Is it possible to make a list, however short, of known extrasolar statistics/extremes? Yes. Is such a list notable? Yes. Is this current version of the list it? No. So fix it. wikipediatrix 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Definite keep. Why even nominate? It's a content matter at best, isn't it? • Lawrence Cohen  20:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone just beat me to it and deleted two subheads that didn't belong. If it's left like that - and not reverted in a week - then you can argue as the first poster did. I tend to favor his postition and believe he should be bold and remove the offending entries. If someone just revents, then it can come back for another AfD. MarkBul 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Took the WP:BOLD advice and got rid of a whole lot of data that shouldn't be there and a whole lot of potentially misleading entries. Chaos syndrome 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.